The Polyp Manager: a New Tool for Optimal Polyp Documentation During Colonoscopy. A Pilot Study

Overview

Journal Endosc Int Open

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2016 May 27

PMID 27227117

Authors

Maartje M van de Meeberg

Rob J Th Ouwendijk

Pieter C J Ter Borg

Sven J van den Hazel

Paul C van de Meeberg

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Study Aims: Conventional reporting of polyps is often incomplete. We tested the Polyp Manager (PM), a new software application permitting the endoscopist to document polyps in real time during colonoscopy. We studied completeness of polyp descriptions, user-friendliness and the potential time benefit.

Patients And Methods: In two Dutch hospitals colonoscopies were performed with PM (as a touchscreen endoscopist-operated device or nurse-operated desktop application). Completeness of polyp descriptions was compared to a historical group with conventional reporting (CRH). Prospectively, we compared user-friendliness (VAS-scores) and time benefit of the endoscopist-operated PM to conventional reporting (CR) in one hospital. Duration of colonoscopy and time needed to report polyps and provide a pathology request were measured. Provided that using PM does not prolong colonoscopy, the sum of the latter two was considered as a potential time-benefit if the PM were fully integrated into a digital reporting system.

Results: A total of 144 regular colonoscopies were included in the study. Both groups were comparable with regard to patient characteristics, duration of colonoscopy and number of polyps. Using the PM did reduce incomplete documentation of the following items in CRH-reports: location (96 % vs 82 %, P = 0.01), size (95 % vs 89 %, P = 0.03), aspect (71 % vs 36 %, P < 0.001) and completeness of removal (61 % vs 37 %, P < 0.001). In the prospective study 23 PM-colonoscopies where compared to 28 CR-colonoscopies. VAS-scores were significantly higher in the endoscopist-operated PM group. Time to report was 01:27 ± 01:43 minutes (median + interquartile range) in the entire group (PM as CR), reflecting potential time benefit per colonoscopy.

Conclusions: The PM is a user-friendly tool that seems to improve completeness of polyp reporting. Once integrated with digital reporting systems, it is probably time saving as well.

References

de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen D, Moolenaar W, Ouwendijk R, Tang T . Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 75(1):98-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.032. View

Singh H, Kaita L, Taylor G, Nugent Z, Bernstein C . Practice and documentation of performance of colonoscopy in a central Canadian health region. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 28(4):185-90. PMC: 4071923. DOI: 10.1155/2014/635932. View

Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith R, Atkin W, Duggirala S, Fletcher R . Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 65(6):757-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.055. View

Lin O, Kozarek R, Cha J . Impact of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: an evidence-based review of published prospective and retrospective studies. Intest Res. 2014; 12(4):268-74. PMC: 4214952. DOI: 10.5217/ir.2014.12.4.268. View

Robertson D, Lawrence L, Shaheen N, Baron J, Paskett E, Petrelli N . Quality of colonoscopy reporting: a process of care study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97(10):2651-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.06044.x. View

Li J, Nadel M, Poppell C, Dwyer D, Lieberman D, Steinberger E . Quality assessment of colonoscopy reporting: results from a statewide cancer screening program. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2010; 2010. PMC: 2948883. DOI: 10.1155/2010/419796. View

Palmer L, Abbott D, Hamilton N, Provenzale D, Fisher D . Quality of colonoscopy reporting in community practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72(2):321-7, 327.e1. PMC: 3087434. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.03.002. View

Beaulieu D, Barkun A, Martel M . Quality audit of colonoscopy reports amongst patients screened or surveilled for colorectal neoplasia. World J Gastroenterol. 2012; 18(27):3551-7. PMC: 3400856. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i27.3551. View

Lieberman D, Faigel D, Logan J, Mattek N, Holub J, Eisen G . Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 69(3 Pt 2):645-53. PMC: 2749320. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.034. View

10.

Beaulieu D, Martel M, Barkun A . A prospective intervention study of colonoscopy reporting among patients screened or surveilled for colorectal neoplasia. Can J Gastroenterol. 2012; 26(10):718-22. PMC: 3472912. DOI: 10.1155/2012/623402. View

11.

Coe S, Panjala C, Heckman M, Patel M, Qumseya B, Wang Y . Quality in colonoscopy reporting: an assessment of compliance and performance improvement. Dig Liver Dis. 2012; 44(8):660-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2012.03.022. View

12.

Gouveia-Oliveira A, Salgado N, Azevedo A, Lopes L, Raposo V, Almeida I . A unified approach to the design of clinical reporting systems. Methods Inf Med. 1994; 33(5):479-87. View